I became less butt shy and tried my method out again the next day. It worked like a charm. Otherwise bravado men in suits shifted uncomfortably and discreetly moved further away from me. I had cracked the code on women’s dominance. It was invisible but had been there all along. Ladies, we can stink men into submission.

Thank goodness New York City is so loud. I fart everywhere now. I fart in the grocery store to get the men behind me in line to back up a notch. I fart on the ferry to get men to take their goddamned arm off the back of my seat. I fart at the gym to get the sweaty men to move on over and not take the machine right next to mine. I fart on the street to get men to slow their roll and keep a respectful distance behind me and not encroach on my personal space.

Humid days are the best because the fart hangs around longer. More bang for my butt. Carb-loaded days also tend to be beneficial as they give me more ammo to work with.

If women intentionally fart all the time, men will definitely stay away. That’s assuming men don’t stay away already due to women’s body odor from not taking showers or because of these women’s horrid personalities. I’m certain that feminists will try to give themselves irritable bowel syndrome just to have their bodies fart more.

A couple of years from now, I expect a follow up article where the author complains that men want nothing to do with her. I’m sure there will be shaming language about how “real men should want women who fart all the time and have putrid body odor” and “filthy women are real women”. Such shaming language won’t work on men because no man will want a woman that’s toxic both figuratively and literally.

If the article has any truth to it, most young men will not want anything to do with marriage. All the shaming language from tradcons, which are functionally equivalent to the UN sending strongly worded letters, can not compete with the desire of most men not to be cuckolded. The harshest shaming language from tradcons pales in comparison to the current disaster marriage is right now. If cuckolding becomes more commonplace then the difference only becomes greater.

Tradcons are fighting a battle they can’t win. If a man’s options are being cuckolded or having to occasionally listen to impotent shaming language from tradcons, nearly all men will choose not to be cuckolded.

Today is Memorial Day in the US which means its a day to remember those who have died in war. What group has died in war more than any other group? Men, in particular young men, and many young men died as nothing more than cannon fodder.

The modern equivalent of cannon fodder does not involve drafting men to die in wars. The modern equivalent of cannon fodder is attempting to get young men to follow gynocentric scripts for the benefit of women which involves getting married and/or having men’s income transferred to women via taxes and government spending. The tradcons, the feminists, and other groups are all guilty of trying use young men as cannon fodder. It’s not an exaggeration to say that all of these groups want to use young men as cannon fodder. They want young men to do things that in the best case scenario not in their best interests and in the worst case scenario will involve losing your assets and your children, and being thrown in prison.

In online parlance, “MGTOW” basically refers to any man who’s off-script. There are many scripts out there.

The tradcon / white nationalist script: bust your ass and remain celibate, then marry some supposedly good and worthy Christian “virgin”, move to some rural area, have lots of kids and homeschool them, grow your own food and brag about your lifestyle on the Internet.

The feminist script: bust your ass and have egalitarian relationships with feminist women based on mutual respect, marry an ageing spinster or single mother, have 1 or 2 children and indoctrinate them with feminism, move to the suburbs, pay off your wife’s debts, brag about it all on the Internet and then tearfully claim it’s all your fault when she frivorces you and ruins your life.

The MHRA script: bust your ass and do lots of activism on behalf of MRA organizations. Donate money, show up on protests and conferences. Paint a target on your back for tradcons and feminists to shoot at. Whenever attacked, claim that you support “gender equality” and love women.

The PUA script: bust your ass, work out like crazy, spend your free time learning all sorts of “valuable” skills, go on a diet, approach 10 women everyday, travel the Third World, brag about it all online, then move to the Philippines or Latvia when you’re tired of it all, then self-publish your memoirs in online format and sell it on Amazon.

The people pushing these scripts are all targeting the same demographic, young single betas, so they are in fierce competition. What is making their job even harder is that a growing segment of these betas are refusing to follow any script. This is making more and more people angry and frustrated, as evidenced by increasingly shrill public discourse about MGTOWs and the “Sexodus”. Young men are supposed to be dumb disposable shits, after all, and follow a script. But a growing number of them simply won’t do it.

Each of these groups is trying to draft young men as cannon fodder, and they’re all using the same tactic in trying to draft them, shaming language. However, it is not working. Most of these young men have never heard of MGTOW, yet they have decided to refuse to become cannon fodder for these groups, effectively becoming MGTOW.

Why are young men refusing to become cannon fodder in increasing numbers? First, the attacks on them are become more and more shrill which just steels their resolve to become cannon fodder. Each of the groups that want to use men as cannon fodder are not offering young men any incentives to follow them. There’s a saying that was said in the Soviet Union, “They pretend to pay us. We pretend to work.” Even the Soviets understood somewhat that incentives matter which is more than can be said for any of the groups that Hollenhund listed. Sending young men the equivalent of increasingly insane strong worded letters is not a strategy that will work to convince young men.

Why should a young man become cannon fodder for the indirect or direct benefit of women they are fed up with? Even if a young man is willing to sacrifice himself as cannon fodder, he isn’t going to sacrifice himself for a group he is fed up with and likely hates him. More and more young men are figuring this out and refuse to become cannon fodder.

Organizing For Action (which used to be the Obama presidential campaign) has come up with this video to convince parents to talk to their children about getting health insurance:

Hopefully, no one will have to deal with their parents trying to strong arm them into getting health insurance. If you do have to deal with this, stand firm and remember this is nothing more than code olive shaming language. It’s not a surprise that this video had a young man and not a young woman in it. Obamacare is nothing more than a bachelor tax. If you’re parents are trying to force you into getting Obamacare, it’s not for your benefit.

While Code Bronze shaming language covers personal calamities, it doesn’t cover related shaming language that exists at a larger level. For example, one piece of shaming language I have seen used is “if you don’t have kids, medicare and social security will collapse”. That shaming language isn’t about a failure to have a legacy, but a failure to do a (supposed) duty which can be about more than just having children. It’s the charge of being a leech on society. This I’m calling Code Olive since leeches can be the color of olive.

Charge Of Being A Leech On Society (Code Olive)

Discussion: The target is accused of failing to do his duty to society or is accused of being a leech on society. Examples:

If you don’t have children, medicare and social security will collapse.

We all have to contribute to society.

Women are weaker than men so men must lead women.

How dare you choose to work as little as possible? You’re no different than a welfare bum.

You’re a leech on society and/or the government.

Response: Men have to freedom to choose how they live their lives. Men are not required to work just to produce maximum tax revenue for the government or to ensure the stability of government programs. Since society has become hostile to men, there is no reason for a man to support such a society. If society wants men to do things for it, then society has a reciprocal duty to men. Duty can not be one sided. It is a logical choice for a man to remove his productive capacity for a society that doesn’t value him and is hostile to him.

Mule, all Driscoll is asking is that young men learn a trade, put down the porn, and find a girl to marry–what responsible men have done since Creation, really. If that’s too much, you’ve just made Driscoll’s point.

Or, put in terms the actuaries might use for us, if you don’t marry and father some children, good luck having someone to change your bedpan when you’re too old to work and Medicare and Social Security have collapsed. Yes, getting married risks divorce in the next decade. Not getting married risks dying in misery a few more decades hence.

Discussion: Because marriage has turned into an anti-male institution, many men have knowingly or unknowing decided to go their own way and avoid marriage. In most cases, this will correspond with never having children. The (unmarried and childless) target is threatened with a calamity that will befall them when they are older due to their lack of marriage and children. Examples:

While there’s a risk of divorce in getting married in the next decade, there’s a risk of dying in misery with no one to change your bedpan when you’re elderly.

You will be trapped in a nursing home when you are older with no one to visit you.

You will die alone.

There will be no one to remember you after you are dead.

Your family will die out with you.

Response: There are two issues here, what happens before death and what happens after death. After death a man is not going to be around to care about if he has children or if anyone remembers him. Also, if a man wants to be remembered, he does not need children to accomplish that. Before death, the issue is one of frailty and long term care, not “dying alone”. This shaming language assumes that children will be caregivers for their elderly parents. There is no guarantee of this. In rare cases, children may die before their parents. It’s likely that children will dump their parents into a nursing home instead of providing elderly care themselves. Women may try to alienate children from their fathers, so men with children could easily be in the same situation as childless men. A man who falls victim to this type of shaming language is more likely to make a bad marriage decision like marrying a single mother. In this case, the children aren’t his and are likely to not care about long term care of an elderly man with who not related to them. Having children is not a guarantee of anything, and it’s more likely that a man will end up in a situation of getting divorced and having no one to “change his bedpan”.

Like with the last couple of months, we have another entitlement princess that is so filled with entitlement, she is clear winner for the month. Thus, there will be no voting this month. Those of you reading Dalrock’s blog are already familiar with her. She is Jenny Erikson and was submitted by Diamed.

One of the most common forms of shaming language is “You have a small penis” and all of its derivatives. Yet, it is missing from the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics. While it might technically be covered by other categories, it deserves its own category because of how often it gets used. (This is adapted from Eumanios’s blog post about this.) I have also generalized the category of shaming language to cover other attempts at shaming language via attacking a man’s penis.

Charge of Abnormal Genitalia (Code Pearl)

Discussion: While screaming, “You have a small penis!” is arguably covered by other categories of shaming language, it is used so much that it deserves its own category. In addition, other aspects of the target’s genitalia may be attacked such as whether he is circumcised or not. Examples:

You have a small penis.

Your penis is circumcised/not circumcised so there is no reason to listen to you since you obviously have issues from your circumcision/lack of circumcision.

Response: Whatever the issue being debated the state or size of the target’s genitalia is not relevant. It does not affect the ideas being put forward. The accuser has (most likely) never seen the target’s genitalia to be able to accurately comment on it. More than anything else a code pearl shaming tactic exposes the accuser of having no real argument.

Discussion: The target is accused of being a racist in some manner. Examples:

You’re a racist.

You hate black people.

You’re insecure that minorities may have a large penis size than you.

You are using anti-feminism to promote white supremacism.

Response: Feminists do not care about non-white men. “Women and minorities” is nothing but a trick to gain the support of non-white men to hide the fact that feminism hurts non-white men as much as white men. Some of the biggest victims of feminism have been non-white men (mainly due to poverty). The first false rape industry was the KKK that lynched black men on the word of a white woman who lied about being raped by a black man. These facts make it clear than cries of “racism!” are often just a cover for misandry.

The Manosphere, which I believe is primarily comprised of black and South Asian men, seeks the destruction of the family, and by proxy or deliberate motivation, traditional white society. What the Manosphere seeks as their utopic vision, a societal-level sausage fest, will accomplish nothing and furthermore directly contradicts the biological imperative of every single animal that has ever lived. By focusing on the gender war, their occasionally noble pursuit implicitly ignores the far more fundamental aspect of liberalism – hatred of Western civilization and whites. While not in a full-length post, I’ve argued before that a large portion of the Manosphere is primarily concerned with exonerating NAM men for their crimes and instead placing the blame at white feminists for society’s ills; with white women also being a group that has largely rejected them sexually. The fact that the Manosphere aggressively opposes racial discussion, both on their blogs’ front pages and within their comment sections, implies that such a characterization has merit.

Discussion: The target is accused of declaring war on the white race or hating white people in some way. Typically, this is used by white nationalists, but it also used sometimes by various reactionaries and conservatives who want to paint the target as a believer in multiculturalism. Examples:

You hate the white race.

You are just angry that white women have rejected you.

You want to destroy Western civilization.

You are blaming white women for the crimes of non-white men.

You are failing in your duty to produce white children.

You are trying to destroy the white race via miscegenation.

Response: Feminists who use the tactic of “women and minorities” do not care about non-white men. Non-white men are victims of feminism just like white men. The damage feminism does affects poor men to a greater degree than other men, and poor men are made up of a higher percentage of non-white men. The first victims of the false rape industry were black men who were lynched by the KKK because a white woman lied about being raped. White nationalism is nothing but a goddess cult that worships white women so they are as feminists as self described feminists.

They are screened through children’s ministry and youth ministry. These programs remove the ones who are poorly suited to church culture. The final mix of adult churchgoers is heavily female and very short on high-testosterone men.

So if a man manages to stay in the church, he will be accused of being “low testosterone”.

Many of the dropouts are the wiggly, high-testosterone boys who grow up to become leaders, athletes and alpha males. The kind of men many women would love to be dating right now – if only there were more of them following Jesus.

Here we’re getting to the real reason why we see articles lamenting the lack of men in the church. It’s because there isn’t enough men in church that women find attractive. (This is confirmed in the author’s second article where he says that more Christian young men are needed for the women in church.) While there can be some truth to this, its not due to guys in church being “low testosterone”. It is because the men in church are trying to conform to a feminized environment, plus other problems like the single women in church have been seriously slutting it up. Don’t hold your breath expecting Boundless to talk about that.

The single men who survive the screening process generally fit one of the following profiles:

1. The Bible geeks. Quiet, studious men who love to study theological tomes. Or verbal guys who love to teach.

2. The musical. They play in the band. Or they stand on the front row raising their hands during the music.

3. The asexual. Guys who are OK with kissing dating (and kissing) goodbye.

4. The predators. Guys who know there are plenty of desperate young women in church and enjoy trying to get them in bed.

5. The social misfits. Strange men who come to church because it’s the only place women will smile at them.

If you’re into these kinds of guys, then the church dating scene isn’t so bad. If not, then you’ll have to fight over the most rare (and for some, the most desirable) category of single churchgoing men: the late converts. These are men who came to Christ in their teens or 20s, bypassing much of the screening process. Many were saved out of terrible sin. They have been forgiven much and love God much. (These guys get snapped up quickly by the best-looking women.)

So if you’re a man who manages to stay in church, you will be thought of as either a nerd, gay (it doesn’t explicitly say gay above but there are veiled references to homosexuality), asexual, a “predator” who is tricking pure women into debauchery, or creepy. (Before someone brings up the Sunday Morning Nightclub to explain the predator category, there are so few guys knowingly doing that so it wouldn’t come up on Boundless.) It’s shaming language on overload.

Chances are a man in church will be accused of being all of the above even though it makes no sense to accuse to a man of being a gay, virgin, asexual, creepy nerd who tricks women into sexual sin. Why is this? Because the church is feminized and misandrist, it throws everything that women consider to be “bad” at men even though they are physically impossible to all happen at once such as being a gay, virgin, asexual, creepy nerd who seduces women against their will. It also has to do with hiding the real nature of the women in the congregation. If you were to compare the sexual sins of the women in church vs. the men, the men on average would be much more “sexually pure” than the women. If you have spent enough time in the manosphere and/or are familiar with the 80/20 rule, this should not surprise you. What the church is trying to do is manufacture fake sins (being “creepy”, asexuality, a “nerd”) and transfer the sins the women have committed (like being a slut) on to the men.

If Jesus returned, the Christian Church would denounce him as a loser, gay, asexual, creepy, virgin nerd who was going to church just to prey on women.

What happens is that a man in church is likely to get accused of things that aren’t really sins and actual sins he’s rarely or never committed, but the women do on a weekly basis. It’s better for a man who wants to stay in church to leave the church in his teens and 20s and bang a lot of women. If you look at the last paragraph that I quoted above, it’s almost like Boundless is encouraging that strategy. This means that any pretense of actual Christianity that the Christian Church has is now gone forever.

For a man, why would he stay in the church? If he stays, he will be accused of sins he never committed and things that women want to be sins but actually aren’t. He will get more respect from the church by staying away from it as we see here. Of course, there’s no reason for him to come back because no man wants to deal with this rank hypocrisy and misandry. Eventually, the only men in church will be married men dragged there by their wives. All other men will be so thoroughly disgusted with the church that they will never come back. Even for a man that believes in Jesus won’t come back because the Christian Church is a feminized place that worships women and no longer worships Jesus/God.

Sooner or later this will cause the Christian Church to implode and die.

I cannot offer an apology for feminism. I have not been able to align myself with the women’s movement because my sexual ethics, which are informed by my Catholic faith, are incompatible with the feminist stance on birth control, extra-marital sex, and abortion.

That’s it. So what about the other 99.999% of feminism? Clearly, she agrees with that. When it comes to things like birth control and sex outside of marriage, there is nothing really “feminist” about it. There are plenty of pro-life feminists so abortion isn’t particularly feminist either. This woman’s three examples of how “she’s not a feminist” have a very limited and tenuous connection to feminism at best. She has nothing to say about things really caused by feminism like paternity fraud, men who are forced into corrupt divorce courts and have their children stolen from them, the false rape industry, the false sexual abuse industry, the false sexual harassment industry, affirmative action, etc.

This woman is just another AFINO (anti-feminist in name only) and an example of conservative female supremacism.

I don’t believe that MRAs tell the truth about their experience with women. Some of them say they have a girlfriend/wife while it’s obviously false – guys that brags their girlfriend is a virgin supermodel member of MENSA. Some say they have submissive girlfriend/wife and they lie (Dalrock say that he’s a happily married Christian man and it’s obvious from what he writes that he’s not happy and very frustrated).

All right, I admit it. All the women I talked about banging and being my girlfriends are completely made up. Who else is making up girlfriends, wives, and sex partners? Come on admit it.

Seriously? WTF? I could post a video of myself in 1080p in 3D having sex with a woman or the time I had a threesome or have sex with a woman right in front of him, and this guy will still claim that I’m not getting laid. This is how wedded our our enemies are to the idea that all of us are losers who can’t get laid. First, it doesn’t matter if any of us are having sex or not. Second, even though most of us are getting laid and/or have girlfriends, our enemies just say this over and over again (if they don’t go the code magenta route of accusing us of preying on defenseless women).

The argument against code purple shaming language is usually about that whether a man is getting laid or not is not relevant to his ideas. That is correct of course, and the principle we need to defend. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t fight code purple shaming language in other ways. Pointing out that code purple shaming language is used against men who get laid regularly really knocks out the legs from under it. It’s the ultimate way of showing the principle that mens rights ideas aren’t based on whether he is getting laid or not. Plus, it makes our enemies look like the absurd morons they are.

Now, if you will excuse me, I am going to have sex with a virgin supermodel MENSA member.

I am 35 and maybe I’m starting to get old – when I go out and about I see boys who should be men everywhere I go. Most wouldn’t be able to help a damselindistress if they had to, I’m surprised they can tie their own shoes. Of course this does not speak to their actual abilities, just what I see/think based on appearance and actions I observe in public, anonymously and without any follow up. I admit I’m biased that way. But if we can say we have instincts and that a person’s visual presentation gives us cues as to his/her ability, then I have little faith in the future of our species.

Damsels in distress? I didn’t know anyone still talked like that. Regardless, “damsels in distress” can help themselves.

The last thing I will add, withdrawing chivalry from women as a means to punish the woman is never legitimate and is something I would characterize as being abusive towards women

I bolded that last part. Here we have an example of tradcons using code tangerine shaming language. The false abuse industry isn’t limited to leftist feminists.

The funniest part of this is if you scroll up to where the (Not) Thinking Housewife has to remind everyone that Jesse Powell is a man. He’s such a big mangina and white knight that it’s easy to think he’s a woman.

I finally managed to check this website in detail and… honestly, I find this place repuslvie. There is little to no actual critical comments and reviews on feminism and feminist theory but mainly cherry picking and blatant misinterpretation. And LOTS of hate. Most of it… it’s just pure women hating. For less than 75 articles I have seen the word “bitch” and “sluts” used as a derogatory word too many times to feel fine. Subtle or not so subtle recommendations about sexual and physical abuse and other stuff which made me cringe.

Discussion: The target is accused of being abusive. Generally the accusation is vague about the “abuse” to imply a similarity to something like domestic abuse or sexual abuse while avoiding a specific example of how the target is “abusive”. Examples:

You’re abusive

What you said is abusive to women

Response: Abuse has a real definition. It does not involve the simple act of disagreeing with a woman or calling out a woman on her behavior. Associating either of those things with abuse just cheapens what real victims of abuse have gone through. Since the accuser can not show actual examples of the target committing actual abuse, it is obvious that the accusations of abuse against the target are nonsense.

I hope I can talk to you about your most recent blog. Your relationships with women are in need of improvement. You can improve your relationships with women by choosing to respect women. Women do not exist to be ornaments for your penis. We are people deserving of your respect. What would your mother think if she knew using multiple women for your own pleasure?

“What would my mom think?” is code black shaming langauge, and my mom doesn’t think anything about this since she in unaware of my activities with women. And this doesn’t deal with the fact that many women want to be “penis ornaments”.

You’re timing was excellent for this article on heterophobia. I was helping my landlord photograph one of the apartments and he actually told me that I’m not feminine enough. Ya think? I have a big hairy beard and I usually announce to other men that I am a homophobe if I think it is necessary.

Yes, this is satanic and the only solution is to keep God’s commandments. In the Bible it says that a man is not to cut his beard. (Leviticus 19:27) When I realized this, I grew mine out and it drives the satanists nuts. If your male readers start to grow out their beards in obedience to God’s commandments, they could start gaining ground over the evil.

It sounds like a small thing, but it is queer, pagan, and satanic to shave the face. Some women will not even look at me. The ones that my beard doesn’t bother are the ones with whom I have conversations. If you want to drive them nuts, just grow out your beard and then tell them that queers shave their faces. Don’t cut off anything, just let it grow. Keep the hair on the long side.

If I see any “Christian” pastor who does not have a beard, I won’t even listen to the man. The queering of the population came upon us along time ago. Getting men to shave their faces was to get them to do womanly things.

I’ve had people go absolutely nuts, especially my family, because I grew my beard. They want me to cut it, but I tell them I’m not queer and that God made women with smooth faces; not men.

One day a man came up to me and said: “Why don’t you shave, don’t you want to be clean?” I said something like: “Do you shave your ass?” His face turned red and he said: “No.” I then said: “Well, don’t you want to be clean?”

Shaving is stupid, yet I did it most of my life because I was feminized since I was a young boy. A man with a beard can even have a hard time getting a job. I manage to carry on with business.

In my case, the beard reflects my masculinity; not my inner bitch, nor my feminine side. I am not feminine in any way. I love women but I don’t want to be one because God made me a man. Just trying to be a man can be dangerous.

I took great delight in upsetting people who didn’t like my beard; and I still do. If you really want to get under the communist-satanists skin; grow a beard, man-up and grow your beard. There’s a big payoff that comes from obeying God’s commandment.

your position is crystal clear and a repetition of what you’ve already said. Your greatest fear about the potential future fallout from the current mess is that women’s autonomy may get terminally eroded and some men may become such hardliners that they’d start killing feminists (which is the sort of utterly baseless, sensationalist “argument” one would expect to see on Jezebel.com). Your concern is thus mainly about the possible disadvantages women would suffer and not, say, the masses of men who would die horrific deaths in the same scenario.

I’ve seen examples of this self-serving female attitude before. Susan Walsh once said that the main reason why he wants men’s overall social condition to improve is because her female readers are interested in high-quality “eligible” mates. Kay Hymowitz also argued that men should “man up” and improve themselves because…the women want high-value mates.

All in all, I have never seen a single woman argue that she wants to see men’s grievances and problems addressed because she cares about them as her fellow human beings who deserve dignity and respect. What women say instead is that men should improve themselves in order to…provide women with the mates they want. In other words, women don’t believe that men’s prosperity is a worthy goal in itself. Women think it’s self-evident that men just OWE them various things.

I find it funny – easy to explain and not terribly surprising, but nevertheless funny – that virtually all women and the majority of men go through life under the assumption that women have enormous social value just by virtue of being women; that they are the ultimate prize in men’s lives; that their uteruses are worth their weight in gold.

We can observe this gynocentric attitude in society’s general treatment of male-female relationships. By and large, society considers it self-evident that a young woman should be picky when choosing a mate because she’s the prize and she deserves the best she can get by virtue of having an uterus, whereas a young man should pretty much have no standards and should just believe that any woman who agrees to put up with him is somehow God’s gift to him.

For the sake of argument, I’ll try to illustrate the absurdity of this attitude by offering a hypothetical scenario. Let’s suppose one of the well-known male journalists wrote something like this:

“I think women’s overall social condition is worrying. They need our help and advice. I believe we should encourage young women to stay thin, develop a positive, cheerful nature and learn how to be good lovers, because these are the sort of mates the average young man is interested in.”

All feminists and virtually all women would go apeshit and this man would lose his job the next day. Reverse the roles, and it’s just business as usual in the current media.

We all know traditionalist women routinely complain about the supposed fatalism of the MRM. If you ask them about this, they will of course tell you that what they object to is nihilist MRAs “whining”, “sitting around complaining” and rejecting traditionalist roles instead of manning up and doing something against the feminist system and proposing societal solutions. If you ask me, I think what really bothers them about the MRM is something completely different: the message of male self-preservation.

This is something incomprehensible to traditionalist women because they have always operated under the assumption that men are uncomplaining, expendable provider and protector mules who will accept any sacrifice society and women demand of them. But now we have a growing number of young men seeing both the patriarchy and feminism for the shams they are, refusing existing gender roles, going their own way and practicing self-preservation, becoming asshole cads etc. MRA authors encourage them not to take unnecessary risks, not to become victims, to consider marriage only optional, to carefully weigh their options and care about their own well-being. This phenomenon is almost unprecedented in human history and to the average traditionalist mind it falls in the “does not compute” category.

It is especially unnerving for traditionalist women because what they actually want is a sort of “soft landing” after the excesses of the past 40-50 years, a scenario where women only have to suffer minimal damage as men decide to adopt traditionalism, “grow a pair”, defeat the feminist monster and accept patriarchal roles again. What they actually want men to do is to band together under the rightist flag, mount a heroic frontal assault against the feminist pillboxes, suffer enormous losses – all right-wing ideologies just love the idea of martyrdom, after all – but eventually reach victory, reestablish the patriarchy, wipe the leftist blood from their bayonets and then graciously offer women the role of SAHM so that these precious creatures can once again grace with their presence the lives of the manly men who deserve it. In their minds, men only exist as providers (read: mules), white knights and heroic martyrs who sacrifice themselves for their morally pure, angelic women.

But men are wising up and telling them to suck it – in growing numbers. Traditionalist women are resorting to their old tricks, saying “the ultimate goal of the patriarchy is to benefit men”, but more and more men are realizing it’s bullshit. Some of these women started opportunistically sniffing around the MRM, hoping to find patriarchal knights in shining armor just dying to rescue the damsels in distress and slay the feminist dragon in mortal fight, but the MRM rejects them. These women actually believe that even after the decades of fire, destruction and suffering unleashed by the feminist culture war, if they simply say “I want to be a rightist SAHM”, men will grow a pair and sign up for marriage 1.0 like the mules they are, as if nothing happened in the past 40 years. What they don’t realize is that the blinders are off, women have revealed themselves for what they truly are and the trust between the genders is terminally broken. Even legal reform couldn’t resuscitate the marriage rate. Even if a law is passed to benefit husbands, it can easily be repealed 5-10 years later and more and more men know this. Western civilization is dying, but men won’t save it for women. More and more of them will simply keep out of the blast wave and preserve themselves, only for themselves and nobody else.

I found your blog, and I must declare as God as my witness I have never heard of a more sexually immoral man than you. You are in the express lane of the highway to Hell travelling at 500 miles per hour.

I can’t stop thinking about those poor women you brainwashed into your cult of immoral sexual filth. I know that both of them just want to get married and raise some Godly children. You have defrauded these women by pretending to want marriage. You have used their desire for a family against them to force them to agree to servicing your filthy sexual desires.

One hundred years ago, cads like you were run out of town. You never would have gotten a threesome since women had Godly men as options. Women didn’t have to go into the sewer where you live to find a man.

You’re only hope is to repent because you are travelling at 500 miles per hour on the highway to Hell. There are no threesomes in Hell. I do not know if any sexual immorality goes on in Hell, but if it does, you will be on the receiving end.

This hate email is pure Code Scarlet shaming language. We see the standard conservative female supremacist canard of blame men for everything and absolve women for everything. “Nora” can’t handle the fact that Sabrina and Kate made the decision to participate in a threesome with me (and continue to have sex with me separately afterwards) of their own free will. I didn’t use Jedi mind tricks or “brainwashing” as Nora says on them. Nora’s claim about “brainwashing” is no different from when Denise Romano claimed gamers were hypnotizing women.

The idea that women just want to get married and raise “Godly children” but can’t because of sexually immoral men is just laughable. Sure women in their late 20s like Sabrina and Kate want to get married but that’s because they know their looks are going to go downhill (even though they’re both 8s right now) and they have a fixed number of eggs. It’s not about wanting to fulfill “Godly desires”. After getting to the precipice of spinsterhood (H/T: artofclueless) women start looking for a beta chump. This is what women’s desire for marriage is about, not a desire to serve God.

I really don’t know what to say about the idea that I’m “defrauding” Sabrina and Kate out of marriage. The idea that being a woman’s boyfriend means that you have promised her marriage is absurd beyond belief. Despite its high level of absurdity, it’s just what we would expect coming out of the mouth of a conservative female supremacist.

Kathy, I think PMAFT is the one who attacked Amanda about her post on abortion. She said that she thought partner should have a say in abortion, it would be wrong not to. I think she made a comment like why shouldn’t he get a say when he’d even get a say in buying a sofa at Ikea. And it got made into evil feminist girl says having an abortion is like shopping for a sofa at Ikea.

When did this happen and who is Amanda? Answer: It didn’t and I have no clue who Amanda is. Maybe Lily dreamed that I said that. Plenty of women have had that confusion before. The fact that this post has to be started with me getting accused of something that I know nothing about is very telling about what else we will encounter.

Both Paige’s and Wifey’s post ignore at least 50% of my original post just to claim I’m “melodramatic”, have a “melodramatic soul”, and a “drama queen”. As anyone who actually read my post could tell, I’m addressing socon and tradcon views of (modern) marriage and the state of modern womanhood. It’s not about me, and both of them tried to make it about me.

Paige claimed that I want the domestic skills of a “Martha Stewart” in a woman. In reality my standard for this sort of thing is quite low. Most women now will not make good wives and mothers. It’s not about expecting Martha Stewart. Being married to Martha Steward would be nightmare.

As for the rest of it — entitlement princessery, hatred for men, blah blah blah, this is a complaint I only hear from one type of guy. Hint: it’s not the type of guy women want. I’ll agree, though, it is unfortunate for some of the betas out there that they are now expected to bring it.

If, and only if, you, as a man, are saving yourself for your future wife — in other words, youare a virgin yourself, then fine. Find a sexy virginal girl and marry away. But if you’re not a virgin, then not only can you not complain, but you should be seriously worried about a girl past her teenage years who is still a virgin.

I have never “demanded a virgin”. I’m not one myself and after having a threesome, I’m pretty far away from it. My post was in reference to what the socons and tradcons promote as their system for marriage. One of their standards is virginity until marriage, but that is not happening even among socon and tradcon women. Rather than dealing with it, they blame men for it to the point of almost claiming that men are using Jedi mind tricks on women to effectively claim that women haven’t sinned in this area. I am going to hold them to their standards. It’s not about what I expect in a woman. Then Wifey completely misses the point when it comes to expating.

Oh, right, because women who are willing to marry outside their culture/race/country are really going to be paragons of wifely femininity. If she’s willing to deny her family, culture, country, and language for you, she wants your money. If there’s one good thing we cansay about American women, it’s that they’re less — not to be confused with “not” — mercenary than other women.

When I talked about going expat, it was to limit the scope of what I was talking about. Feminism is almost everywhere now but there are other countries that are not as feminist as the West, at least not yet. If you’re a man and really want to get married that may be an option for you. In those countries they don’t have anti-male marriage and divorce law yet. This is a real problem to be dealt with. The state of laws isn’t based on whether I’m getting laid or not.

The idea that American women are less likely to be golddiggers than foriegn women is laughable. It’s a common thread throughout the comments of Wifey’s post since the women there have their rationalization hamsters on overdrive. You can run your hamsters at infinite speed but it still won’t make you marriage quality.

Wifey then ends her comment with some joke of a paragraph from Obsidian. There’s a lot of problems with that but I will focus on just one. It doesn’t make sense since I am getting women. I could have posted a video of my threesome with Sabrina and Kate but Wifey still would have said that I can’t get laid. Most of the guys Obsidian claims are failing at getting laid are in fact doing a lot better than him. They just don’t kiss womens’ asses like he does (and that’s one of the reasons they’re doing better with women than him).

Even if I wasn’t getting laid it wouldn’t matter. The issues don’t change. It’s not about me. It’s about socons and tradcons pushing marriage yet refusing to admit most women are not marriage quality (and refusing to admit that there are laws that need changing to make it safe for men to get married). It’s about women failing to be marriage quality. More and more men are evaluating marriage and have come to the conclusion that there’s nothing in it for them. They are correct. The men making this decision will be fine. It the women who want to get married and the socons and the tradcons who want to push marriage who have to be worried. If you want men to get married then you’re going to have to improve the product (and women are the product here). Insulting your customers, men, by claiming that they can’t get laid (especially when they are getting laid) isn’t going to work.

I could ask Sabrina or Kate to marry me today, and it’s a safe bet they would say yes. Either one of them is better than 90% of women out there when it comes to marriage quality. That still doesn’t mean marrying them is a good idea. Things are so bad that Sabrina and Kate don’t meet a very low standard for marriage quality needed to get married. Even if they met the standard, it doesn’t matter. What about everyone else? I’m not going to say, “I’ve got mine, screw you”. This is a real problem, and it’s not about me.

Reagan said, “I didn’t leave the Democrats. The Democrats left me.” What feminists don’t realize is that men didn’t leave Western civilization. Western civilization left men. Because of feminism. Now they complain that they can’t find enough useful idiots.

This isn’t limited to just feminists. It’s true of any conservative female supremacist or other kind of fake anti-feminist as well. We hear a lot about men supposedly failing to mature, get married, “man up”, etc. as if men just decided one day that they weren’t going to bother anymore. That is not what happened. The opposite happened. The reason why increasing numbers of men are making the RATIONAL and LOGICAL decision to avoid marriage, high stress jobs, college, etc. is because Western Civilization has become increasingly hostile to men. Why support a civilization that actively hates you and over time increases its hate for you?

The complaints we hear about men whether it’s from Kay Hymowitz or from people complaining about comments at The Spearhead are all about the fact that they’re running out of useful idiots. Why are socons (social conservatives) from Mark Richardson to The (Not) Thinking Housewife saying, “There’s a problem with marriage but you are supposed to ‘man up’ and get married anyway because it’s your duty to God/Western Civilization/etc.?” Because all forms of female supermacism (both feminist and socon) need a supply of men working as useful idiots to keep everything running. The obvious answer is to bring Western Civilization back to men since men didn’t leave Western Civilization but if safe to say that won’t be happening. That would involve offering men something of equal value for their labor, skills, and commitment and no female supremacist of any stripe will negotiate in good faith with men.

Over the last several days we have heard the usual litany of complaints about The Spearhead and MRAs with respect to the “language” we use. The (Not) Thinking Housewife complained about our “evil” profanity and from other places came the usual nonsense about how “scary” our language is or how we’re “scaring away women and other moderates who support us”. (“Scary” language is code orange shaming language, and “scaring away moderates” is used so much it should become it’s own category of shaming language.)

That wasn’t my actual experience, Mr. Billy Goat Gruff, I was using that as an analogy for what always happens on these boards. I wrote a post not long ago how men are demanded to act like robots and how no women and few men even acknowledge their humanity. We must follow the programming they are trying to shove down our throats at all times. Men’s pain is absolutely taboo to even speak of.

Peter Nolan has had everything he worked for for more than 20 years of his life stolen from him, been betrayed in the foulest possible manner and lied about by the woman who vowed to “cherish” him until “death do us part”, lost his children, and everyone just sort of skips over those inconvenient facts to tell him that he shouldn’t be so forceful when he talks about it, and should “tone it down.”

Men have no place to go to express their pain, anger, and anguish among other men who understand. Everyone wants to 2nd guess how he “should” be saying it, so that they don’t have to listen to or acknowledge what he is saying. It is just one subtle way that is used to suppress and silence men.

I likened it to someone who is seriously injured and in pain having that pain ignored and instead having everyone critique how he expresses it.

Zed is correct. All this talk about how a man should be speaking about these issues is a subtle attempt to silence men. If a man can’t communicate the severity of a problem, then he can’t communicate the real nature of that problem. On top of that it doesn’t matter what a man says or how severe he says it when it comes to mens rights issues. We could completely eliminate all profanity from our blog posts and comments and have them triple checked by lawyers to not offend anyone. It wouldn’t matter. No matter how good or bad our language is we would still get these accusations since it’s all about silencing men.

Talk about “scaring away moderates who support us” is similar in its attempt to silence men. If men don’t speak out about these issues, any “moderates” we might gain would be offset by the fact that they would have no knowledge of the real issues or their severity. And a lot of the “moderates” aren’t really moderates. They’re just hiding their misandry through triangulation. A real moderate who supports us wouldn’t spend years denouncing the “scary” language of The Spearhead and how it scares away moderates. A real moderate who supports us would look more like Glenn Sacks. If Sacks is aware of The Spearhead he may think it’s too extreme but that doesn’t stop him from his work in fathers rights, reforming the (anti-)family court system, ending false accusations, etc. He doesn’t complain on his blog over and over again about the “scary men on The Spearhead”. In fact these “moderates who support us” never say a word about men like Glenn Sacks much less try to work with them. This is just proof that the “moderates who support us” are neither moderate nor do they support us.

Attempting to silence men will not work. Pretending the problem doesn’t exist does not make it go away. In fact it will make the problem worse. If you’re worried about “scary” language now, you haven’t seen anything yet. Just wait until 2015 or 2020 when the current generation of boys start becoming adults. They have experienced the boot of feminism on their necks way worse than anyone reading this probably has. The Spearhead as it is now will seem tame in comparison.